Prevalence and predictors of cancer‐related worry and associations with health behaviors in adult survivors of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related worry (CRW) is common among cancer survivors; however, little is known about factors associated with CRW or its impact on health behaviors in adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: Survivors in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study (n = 3211; 51% male; mean age, 31.2 years [SD, 8.4 years]; mean time after diagnosis, 22.8 years [SD, 8.3 years]) underwent medical evaluations and completed ratings of CRW, psychological symptoms, and health behaviors. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models examined associations between CRW and treatment exposures, chronic health conditions, psychological symptoms, and health behaviors. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of survivors (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.6-65.9) reported worry about subsequent malignancy, 45% (95% CI, 43.5-46.9) reported worry about physical problems related to cancer, and 33% (95% CI, 31.2-34.4) reported worry about relapse. Multiple psychological symptoms, treatment exposures, and chronic conditions significantly increased the risk of CRW. Survivors reporting CRW were at increased risk for substance use, inadequate physical activity, and increased health care utilization after adjustments for chronic conditions. For example, with adjustments for chronic conditions, those who endorsed CRW were more likely to have ≥5 cancer-related physician visits, ≥5 physician visits related to cancer, and ≥5 calls to a physician's office in the previous 2 years in comparison with survivors who were not worried. CRW was also associated with an increased risk of current tobacco use, past marijuana use, and current marijuana use. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of adult survivors of childhood cancer reported CRW associated with increased health care utilization. CRW may serve as an intervention target to promote well-being and adaptive health behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".